Jump to content

Talk:October Revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Max Rowe-Sutton, Mfili5, Gmckay1, Kirbykarpan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The October "Revolution" wasn't a revolution per-se

[edit]

It was a coup d'état. Russians actually held a democratic election after the actual, February Revolution. And the Bolsheviks lost in it, as in, they didn't get enough support to rule. So they overthrew the democratically elected government a few months later. That is a coup d'état. It is called a revolution only out of courtesy and a historiographic/political tradition. Erasing what went down in November 1917 and branding it as a "revolution of the people" was also very important for the nascent Soviet Union. Hence the naming—the October Revolution—as reinforced by Soviet institutions. LordParsifal (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordParsifal Regardless of the accuracy, it is definitely the term's WP:COMMONNAME. Kinda like how French Fries are actually from Belgium, but everyone calls them French so that's their name. So short of a re-imagining of the term in the public mind, I don't imagine we should change it either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek I am not talking about renaming this article at all. Rather, the elaboration in the lead where it's still described as a revolution. That is factually incorrect.LordParsifal (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are pushing for changes that are not supported by most sources, based on a misguided view of "revolution". Revolution just means dramatic political change, it is a word commonly applied to the Nazi revolution in 1933. (t · c) buidhe 02:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rabinowitch debunked the coup narrative. It was a coup in the sense that it was largely planned and executed by the Bolshevik leadership rather than a spontaneous revolutionary movement, but one with a lot of support, and in which local Soviets were often ahead of the leadership in calling for the overthrow of the Provisinal Government.
For instance nobody calls the February Revolution and the establishment of the PG a 'coup' even though the same arguments could apply to it. As the PG essentially came to power through a constitutional 'coup' by old elites in the Imperial Duma CamelUSSR (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err, wrong. Revolutions are by definition popular and stemming from the people, "the population" this is also the definition that Wikipedia itself puts forward. A coup differs from a revolution in that it's covert and carried out against the will of the people. A coup d'etat isn't a revolution. LordParsifal (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that it was a coup is so apparent, can you provide some reliable sources that back that up? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]